IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i3p271-280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modal Preferences Predict Elderly Patients' Life-sustaining Treatment Choices as Well as Patients' Chosen Surrogates Do

Author

Listed:
  • William D. Smucker
  • Renate M. Houts
  • Joseph H. Danks
  • Peter H. Ditto
  • Angela Fagerlin
  • Kristen M. Coppola

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of an actuarial method of predicting patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatment with the accuracy of surrogate decision makers. 401 outpatients 65 years old or older (mean = 73 years) and their self-designated surrogate decision makers recorded preferences for four life-sustaining medical treatments in nine hypothetical illness scenarios. The surrogates did not predict the patients' preferences more accurately than did an actuarial model using modal preferences. Surrogates' accuracy was not influenced by the use of an advance directive (AD) or discussion of life-sustaining treatment choices. In clinical practice, an actuarial model could assist surrogate decision makers when a patient has no AD, an AD is unavailable, a patient's AD is vague or describes treatment choices for only extreme or unlikely disease states, no proxy decision maker has been designated, or a patient was never competent. Key words: decision making; advance directives; substituted judgment; elderly; surrogates; actuarial. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:271- 280)

Suggested Citation

  • William D. Smucker & Renate M. Houts & Joseph H. Danks & Peter H. Ditto & Angela Fagerlin & Kristen M. Coppola, 2000. "Modal Preferences Predict Elderly Patients' Life-sustaining Treatment Choices as Well as Patients' Chosen Surrogates Do," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 271-280, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:3:p:271-280
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000303
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000303?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:3:p:271-280. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.